Erez Zadok - November 28, 2017
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - - - - - - - x
`:
`
`IPR2016-01839
`: U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`: IPR2016-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
` v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING
`GMBH & CO., KG,
`
`:
`
`IPR2016-01860
`: U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`: IPR2016-01863
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`Patent Owner. :
`
`IPR2016-01864
`: U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`- - - - - - - - - - - x
`
`November 28, 2017
`Washington, D.C.
`
`Deposition of:
`
`EREZ ZADOK,
`called for oral examination by counsel for the
`Patent Owner, pursuant to notice, at the law
`offices of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, PLLC,
`1100 New York Avenue, Northwest, Suite 800,
`Washington, D.C. 20005, before Christina S.
`Hotsko, RPR, CRR, of Veritext Legal Solutions, a
`Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia,
`beginning at 10:08 a.m., when were present on
`behalf of the respective parties:
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 1
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG.
`Petitioner – Apple, Inc.
`Patent Owner - Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG.
`IPR2016-01839
`EXH. 2005
`
`

`

`Erez Zadok - November 28, 2017
`
`1 A P P E A R A N C E S
`2 On behalf of Petitioner:
` TYLER J. DUTTON, ESQUIRE
`3 BYRON L. PICKARD, ESQUIRE
` STEVEN W. PETERS, Ph.D.
`4 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, PLLC
` 1100 New York Avenue, Northwest, Suite 800
`5 Washington, D.C. 20005
` (202)371-2600
`
`6
`
` DAVID ALBERTI, ESQUIRE
`7 Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson, LLP
` 1600 El Camino Real, Suite 280
`8 Menlo Park, California 94025
` (650) 384-9869
`
`9
`10 On behalf of Patent Owner:
` GREGORY DONAHUE, ESQUIRE
`11 DiNovo Price, LLP
` 7000 North MoPac Expressway, Suite 350
`12 Austin, Texas 78731
` (512) 539-2626
`
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1 P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`2 Whereupon,
`
`3 EREZ ZADOK,
`
`4 being first duly sworn or affirmed to testify to
`
`5 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
`
`6 truth, was examined and testified as follows:
`
`7 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER
`
`8 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`
`9 Q. Good morning. My name is Greg Donahue.
`
`10 I am an attorney. I work with DiNovo Price, and I
`
`11 represent Papst Licensing in a patent litigation
`
`12 matter against, among others, Apple. And also in
`
`13 these IPR proceedings, which are numbered
`
`14 IPR 2016-01839, IPR 2016-1 -- excuse me, 01842,
`
`15 IPR 2016-01860, IPR 2016-01863, and
`
`16 IPR 2016-01864.
`
`17 Do you understand that?
`
`18 A. Yes, I do.
`
`19 Q. Okay. Have you ever been deposed before?
`
`20 A. Yes, I have.
`
`21 Q. Have you ever been deposed before in a
`
`22 patent case?
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1 A. Yes, I have.
`2 Q. Have you ever been deposed before in
`3 conjunction with an IPR proceeding?
`4 A. Yes, I have.
`5 Q. Okay. So you're probably familiar with
`6 the process, but let me start off by entering the
`7 relevant deposition notices, which are marked as
`8 paper 26 in the 1839 proceeding, paper 19 in the
`9 1842, 1860, 1863 proceedings, and paper 22 in the
`10 1864 proceeding.
`11 So if we could get those five notices, we
`12 could just put those in front of you very briefly.
`13 A. Okay. I have those in front of me.
`14 Q. Okay. Great. Thank you.
`15 Have you seen those documents before?
`16 A. Give me a second.
`17 I'm not sure that I've seen these
`18 particular documents. I probably have. But I was
`19 certainly informed by e-mail about this deposition
`20 and the time, the place, the scope, et cetera.
`21 Q. Great. So do you understand that you're
`22 here to testify regarding your reply declarations
`Page 5
`
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`
`1 C O N T E N T S
`
`2 3
`
`EXAMINATION BY: PAGE
`4 Counsel for Patent Owner 04
`
`5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Page 3
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`

`

`Erez Zadok - November 28, 2017
`
`1 that you submitted on October 18, 2017, in
`2 conjunction with the 1839 proceeding; and
`3 October 23, 2017, in the 1842, 1860, 1863, and
`4 1864 proceedings?
`5 A. Right. Yes.
`6 Q. Okay. Although you've been deposed
`7 before, let me just talk briefly about some
`8 basics, deposition basics. If at any time you
`9 need to or want to take a break, please just let
`10 me know and I'll attempt to accommodate you. I
`11 would ask that you try to complete your answer to
`12 any pending question. But please let me know if
`13 you need to take a break.
`14 Also, to ensure we maintain a clear and
`15 accurate record, I'll ask that you give verbal
`16 answers to my questions rather than shaking your
`17 head or making hand gestures that would be
`18 difficult for the court reporter to record and, in
`19 this instance, for me to see, given that I'm
`20 appearing telephonically.
`21 Does that sound okay?
`22 A. Yes. That's okay.
`
`1 things are discussed in all five of the IPRs.
`2 So I would ask that we have an agreement
`3 that the entire transcript from today will be
`4 filed in all five of the IPR proceedings.
`5 Is that acceptable to the attorneys?
`6 MR. DUTTON: Yes. That's acceptable.
`7 And we filed both transcripts in all of the
`8 proceedings from the Gafford deposition.
`9 MR. DONAHUE: All right. Well, let's go
`10 ahead and get started with the Kawaguchi-based
`11 IPR, which is IPR 2016-01839.
`12 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`13 Q. And if we could get -- I guess for now,
`14 if you could get two things in front of you. One
`15 will be your reply declaration, which is
`16 Exhibit 1032. And then also, if you could get out
`17 from the 1839 proceeding, Exhibit 2003, which is
`18 the Court's claim construction.
`19 A. Okay. I have my reply declaration,
`20 Exhibit 1032, and I have what looks like the
`21 District Court construction, although I don't
`22 think it actually says on it that it's Exhibit
`
`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`1 Q. I'd also ask that you allow me to finish
`2 my question before you begin answering, and I will
`3 of course extend you the same courtesy, to try to
`4 allow you to finish your answer before I ask
`5 another question.
`6 Does that sound fair?
`7 A. Yes.
`8 Q. Are you on any medication today that
`9 would prevent you from being able to testify
`10 truthfully and accurately?
`11 A. No, not that I know of.
`12 MR. DONAHUE: So this is actually for the
`13 attorneys. I want to make sure we're in
`14 agreement.
`15 In the Gafford deposition, we agreed to
`16 have the deposition transcript filed in all of the
`17 proceedings. And here we're going to have a
`18 single transcript, so it probably makes even more
`19 sense. But I want to make sure, we're going to
`20 start off by discussing the Kawaguchi IPR, then
`21 move to the Pucci IPR. But there will be some
`22 overlap, given that the SCSI book and some other
`Page 7
`
`1 2003. I assume that's the one.
`2 Q. Okay. Yeah. I don't know if it's a copy
`3 from the --
`4 A. Okay.
`5 Q. -- what was filed. But at the very
`6 bottom, there's kind of a five-line, looks almost
`7 like a --
`8 A. Yes.
`9 Q. -- footer that kind of has an EXH2003. I
`10 don't know if that's the version you have in front
`11 of you or not.
`12 A. Yes, yes. You're correct. It's just a
`13 little on the bottom hidden. Got it.
`14 Q. Okay. Great.
`15 Well, let me start by asking, have you
`16 seen this Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion
`17 and Order that's Exhibit 2003 before?
`18 A. Yes, I have.
`19 Q. Okay. If you'll flip to page 29 for me
`20 and let me know when you're there.
`21 A. Okay.
`22 Q. Okay. On the very top of the page,
`
`Page 9
`
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`

`

`Erez Zadok - November 28, 2017
`
`1 you'll see a storage input-output device customary
`2 in a host device construction.
`3 Do you see that?
`4 A. Yes. I guess it's a continuation of the
`5 table of constructions from the previous page.
`6 Q. Correct.
`7 Now, were you aware that in the past
`8 Apple District Court litigation, the term "a
`9 storage input-output device customary in a host
`10 device" was construed as storage input-output
`11 device normally part of commercially available
`12 computer systems at the time of the invention?
`13 MR. DUTTON: I'm going to object to
`14 scope, because Dr. Zadok hasn't provided any
`15 opinions on the District Court Claim Construction.
`16 MR. DONAHUE: In his reply declaration,
`17 he talks about a storage input device customary
`18 host device. So I think it's well within the
`19 scope of his reply declaration.
`20 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`21 Q. Have you -- again, were you aware of this
`22 Claim Construction?
`
`1 this means one and only one.
`2 Q. Okay. But I just want to be clear
`3 because the Court construed the term as it did on
`4 the top of page 29. I want to know, do you agree
`5 that that claim construction is correct?
`6 A. I agree with this construction, and my
`7 declarations and use of -- are consistent with it.
`8 But again, I don't think it means one and only
`9 one.
`10 Q. So you don't believe that the Court's
`11 claim construction believes -- means one and only
`12 one? Is that what you're saying?
`13 A. Well, my understanding of claims is that
`14 words like "a" mean typically one or more. And
`15 when you read the claims as a whole, there's no
`16 restrictions that I see there that suggest that it
`17 has to be only one device.
`18 Q. Okay. So we're past the Claim
`19 Construction stage, correct?
`20 A. Sorry, what was the question?
`21 Q. In the District Court proceeding, we're
`22 past the Claim Construction stage, right? The
`
`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
`1 A. I reviewed a number of documents that
`2 were available to me over time, and I used -- in
`3 some cases I was given the constructions that I
`4 was told were agreed upon or decided; and in some
`5 cases I defined what I meant by certain terms.
`6 Q. Okay. Well, looking at this
`7 construction, do you notice that the "a" before "a
`8 storage input-output device customary in a host
`9 device," did you notice that there was not a
`10 corresponding reference in the construction to "a"
`11 or one or more?
`12 A. Okay. Yes. I see that the word "a" in
`13 the term is not there in the construction.
`14 Q. Okay. Do you also notice that the
`15 construed term references a device, singular, as
`16 opposed to devices plural?
`17 A. Yes. I see that, at least in the
`18 construction.
`19 Q. Do you agree with the District Court's
`20 construction?
`21 A. So I generally agree with their
`22 constructions. That said, I do not agree that
`
`1 Court has already construed the claim; is that
`2 correct?
`3 MR. DUTTON: Objection. Relevance.
`4 THE WITNESS: So I'm not entirely sure
`5 what is going on in the District Court litigation
`6 part, because that's not what I'm involved. But I
`7 do have this court order.
`8 And I seem to recall somewhere in the
`9 PTAB's decisions that they were saying that they
`10 wanted to go with these constructions.
`11 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`12 Q. Right. So that's why I'm asking you
`13 about this construction here today. It is
`14 relevant to our PTAB discussion. And my question
`15 is, you're talking about rules of construction.
`16 But at this stage, the District Court has already
`17 construed the term, the phrase, "the storage
`18 input-output device customary in a host device,"
`19 correct?
`20 A. Right. At this stage it looks like the
`21 District Court has, indeed, construed this term.
`22 Q. Right. So we don't need to talk about
`
`Page 11
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 13
`
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`
`

`

`Erez Zadok - November 28, 2017
`
`1 rules of construction anymore. We have a
`2 construction, correct?
`3 A. Yes.
`4 Q. Okay. And do you agree with the District
`5 Court's Claim Construction that's there on the top
`6 of page 29?
`7 A. Yeah. Generally, I agree. And I
`8 followed these constructions.
`9 Q. Okay. Thank you.
`10 Now, I'm going to ask that you now open
`11 up what's labeled as Exhibit 1001 from the 1839
`12 proceeding. It's the '399 patent.
`13 A. Okay. I have it in front of me.
`14 Q. Okay. And it will -- I think maybe it
`15 would be helpful, for the next few minutes, to
`16 have it opened to Claim 1, which is in Column 12.
`17 A. Okay. This is double-sided. Okay. Yes,
`18 I see it.
`19 Q. Okay. And if you'll look on Claim 1 --
`20 let's see, the third limitation of Claim 1 says,
`21 "A first connecting device for interfacing the
`22 host device with the interface device via the
`
`1 host device and the data transmit-receive device?
`2 A. I mean, it's generally what connects the
`3 two sides, the host device and the, you know, data
`4 transmit receive devices.
`5 I'm not sure what you mean by "between,"
`6 because it -- you know, data transmit-receive
`7 device, for example, doesn't have to be sort of a
`8 completely external entity.
`9 Q. Okay. But you agree that the interface
`10 device connects on one side to the host and on the
`11 other side to the data transmit-receive device,
`12 correct?
`13 A. Yes. Generally, that's what's
`14 illustrated in figure 1.
`15 Q. Now, if we move back to Claim 1 and we
`16 look at the language starting one, two, three four
`17 -- the fifth limitation. It says, "Wherein the
`18 interface device is configured by the processor
`19 and the memory to include a first-command
`20 interpreter and a second-command interpreter."
`21 Do you see that?
`22 A. Yes.
`
`Page 14
`
`Page 16
`
`1 multipurpose interface of the host device."
`2 And then the next limitation says, "A
`3 second connecting device for interfacing the
`4 interface device with a data transmit-receive
`5 device."
`6 Do you see that?
`7 A. Yes.
`8 Q. Okay. So do you agree that Claim 1
`9 requires the interface device to be between the
`10 multipurpose interface of the host device and the
`11 data transmit-receive device?
`12 MR. DUTTON: Objection. Form.
`13 THE WITNESS: Let me see. The interface
`14 device is connected to the host device, and the
`15 data transmit receive devices are connected to the
`16 interface device. Generally, I think this is
`17 illustrated, generally, in figure 1.
`18 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`19 Q. Okay. So let me ask if you could look at
`20 figure 1, if that's helpful.
`21 Do you agree that the interface device is
`22 located between the multipurpose interface of the
`Page 15
`
`1 Q. So would you agree with me that the
`2 interface device includes the first-command
`3 interpreter?
`4 A. Well, it does sound like the interface
`5 device has some form of command interpreter or
`6 software program that executes actions.
`7 Q. Okay. But it says, "The interface device
`8 is configured by the processor and the memory to
`9 include a first-command interpreter."
`10 Correct?
`11 A. Yes, that's what it says.
`12 Q. So the interface device includes a
`13 first-command interpreter, correct?
`14 A. Well, it says, "configured to include,"
`15 but I guess that's what it means because you need
`16 some sort of a software or firmware typically
`17 running on this interface device to execute
`18 actions.
`19 Q. Okay. Now, if we move down to the next
`20 limitation, it says, "Wherein the first-command
`21 interpreter is configured in such a way that the
`22 command interpreter, when receiving an inquiry
`Page 17
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`
`

`

`Erez Zadok - November 28, 2017
`
`1 from the host device as to a type of a device
`2 attached to the multipurpose interface..." And
`3 then going on to the next page, "...of the host
`4 device sends a signal regardless of the type of
`5 the data transmit-receive device attached to the
`6 second connecting device of the interface device
`7 to the host device, which signals to the host
`8 device that it is an input-output device customary
`9 in a host device."
`10 Do you see that?
`11 A. Yes. That limitation still continues on
`12 a little bit.
`13 Q. Sure. I just didn't want to read it all.
`14 That's all that I really think is important to my
`15 next round of questions.
`16 A. Okay.
`17 Q. Do you see where I read?
`18 A. Yeah.
`19 Q. Okay. Would you agree with me that
`20 Claim 1 of the '399 patent, based on the language
`21 I just read, requires that the command interpreter
`22 receives the inquiry?
`
`Page 18
`
`1 MR. DUTTON: Objection. Form.
`2 THE WITNESS: So the way I read it is an
`3 inquiry comes from the host device. It goes
`4 through the multipurpose interface, maybe some
`5 cabling. It then goes into the interface device,
`6 and then it has to reach something that will
`7 process the request, some piece of software like a
`8 command interpreter that would direct the action
`9 and do what's necessary to respond.
`10 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`11 Q. Okay. So the command interpreter, the
`12 first-command interpreter, is what receives the
`13 inquiry; is that correct?
`14 A. No. The inquiry is -- goes through all
`15 these stages, including the interface device.
`16 It's the command interpreter that can begin to
`17 take actions based on it.
`18 Q. Okay. So it says, "Wherein the
`19 first-command interpreter is configured in such a
`20 way that the command interpreter, when receiving
`21 an inquiry..."
`22 Do you see that?
`
`1 A. Yes.
`2 Q. So is that the command interpreter that's
`3 receiving an inquiry?
`4 MR. DUTTON: Objection. Asked and
`5 answered.
`6 THE WITNESS: Well, again, the -- you
`7 know, it's the one that is going -- the command
`8 interpreter is the one that's going to process the
`9 inquiry. And so the inquiry definitely has to go
`10 through the interface device, otherwise it won't
`11 reach the software inside. And then the command
`12 interpreter or the program or software takes
`13 actions.
`14 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`15 Q. Okay. So based on all of our discussion,
`16 it's accurate to say a command interpreter is part
`17 of the interface device and the command
`18 interpreter receives the inquiry from the host,
`19 correct?
`20 MR. DUTTON: Objection. Misrepresents
`21 testimony.
`22 THE WITNESS: There was a multi-part
`Page 20
`
`1 there.
`2 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`3 Q. Well, we've already discussed the command
`4 interpreter being part of the interface device,
`5 correct?
`6 A. Right. That makes sense. Command
`7 interpreter, some program would be part of the
`8 interface device.
`9 Q. So if the command interpreter, which is
`10 part of the interface device, receives the
`11 inquiry -- or excuse me, you would agree, then,
`12 that the command interpreter, which is part of the
`13 interface device, is what receives the inquiry,
`14 correct?
`15 A. As I said, it's the one that processes
`16 the inquiry. The inquiry has to go all the way
`17 from the host through the multipurpose interface
`18 and into the interface device.
`19 And then the command interpreter is the
`20 one that actually acts on it.
`21 Q. Okay. That's fair.
`22 Let's go ahead and take a look at
`
`Page 19
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 21
`
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`
`

`

`Erez Zadok - November 28, 2017
`
`1 Claim 14 now of the '399 patent, if we could. And
`2 in particular, if you'll look at the fourth
`3 limitation that starts with "regardless."
`4 It says --
`5 A. Regardless?
`6 Q. Do you see the one that starts
`7 with "regardless," the limitation that starts
`8 with "regardless"?
`9 A. Yeah.
`10 Q. Okay. It says, "Regardless of the type
`11 of the data transmit receive data attached to the
`12 second connecting device of the interface device,
`13 responding to the inquiry from the host device by
`14 the interface device in such a way that it is an
`15 input-output device customary in a host device."
`16 Do you see that language?
`17 A. Yeah.
`18 Q. Okay. So in Claim 14, you would agree
`19 that it is the interface device that is responding
`20 to the inquiry and identifying itself as an
`21 input-output device customary in a host device,
`22 correct?
`
`Page 22
`
`1 MR. DUTTON: Objection. Form.
`2 THE WITNESS: Hold on. Let me just look
`3 at this claim.
`4 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`5 Q. Sure. Take your time.
`6 A. Okay. Would you repeat the question,
`7 please?
`8 Q. Of course. Would you agree, after
`9 reading Claim 14, that it is the interface device
`10 that is responding to the inquiry and identifying
`11 itself as an input-output device customary in a
`12 host device?
`13 MR. DUTTON: Objection. Form.
`14 THE WITNESS: So the way I read it, in
`15 the third limitation, the inquiring one, it
`16 suggests that the host device is inquiring at the
`17 interface device, which to me means sort of
`18 through it, as to what type of device is attached.
`19 And then, in the "regardless," suggests
`20 that you respond to the inquiry from the host
`21 device by the interface device about the
`22 input-output device that's customary.
`
`Page 23
`
`1 So the language here suggests to me that
`2 the inquiry goes through the interface device. It
`3 is possible that the inquiry will have to be
`4 processed further, and then something inside the
`5 interface device will respond. Or it is possible
`6 that, you know, the interface device might
`7 respond. I don't see it limited in any way here.
`8 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`9 Q. Okay. But do you see the language that's
`10 very specific in that regardless limitation that
`11 says, "...responding to the inquiry from the host
`12 device by the interface device"?
`13 Do you see that?
`14 A. Yes, I do.
`15 Q. So the interface device is responding to
`16 the inquiry, correct?
`17 A. So the way I take this claim as a whole
`18 is that the inquiring portion says "at the
`19 interface device," which to me sounds like it
`20 reaches there but doesn't necessarily have to stop
`21 there.
`22 And the "responding by the interface
`Page 24
`
`1 device" sounds like by way of the interface
`2 device.
`3 Q. Okay. And it says, "...responding to the
`4 inquiry from the host device by the interface
`5 device in such a way that it is an input-output
`6 device customary in a host device."
`7 The "it" is referring back to the
`8 immediately preceding interface device, correct?
`9 A. The way I parse this, the "it," given
`10 that they say it is an input-output device
`11 customary in a host device, it makes more sense to
`12 me that it would refer to the type of data
`13 transmit-receive device.
`14 Q. So despite the language saying that
`15 "...responding to the inquiry from the host device
`16 by the interface device in such a way that it is
`17 an input-output device customary in a host
`18 device," you do not believe the "it" refers to the
`19 interface device; is that what you're testifying
`20 to today?
`21 A. I don't think it is limited to only that.
`22 Q. Okay. Can you tell me again, in addition
`Page 25
`
`7 (Pages 22 - 25)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`

`

`Erez Zadok - November 28, 2017
`
`1 to it potentially referring to the interface
`2 device, what else could it refer to?
`3 A. The "it is" in the "regardless"
`4 limitation makes more sense to me that it refers
`5 to the type of data transmit-receive device. It
`6 could also refer to the interface device.
`7 Q. Okay. So if we'll move now to -- let's
`8 go to your declaration, your reply declaration,
`9 Exhibit 1032. And if we can open it up to page
`10 11.
`11 A. Page 11.
`12 Q. And then at the top of page 11, you have
`13 Section 3 that's entitled Construction of the
`14 Phrase "it is an input-output device" in Claims 1,
`15 11, and 14."
`16 Do you see that?
`17 A. Yes, I do.
`18 Q. Okay. And then paragraph 17, it bleeds
`19 over on to page 12. And I'd ask you to flip to
`20 page 12.
`21 The last sentence says, "A POSITA would
`22 understand, therefore, that the claims encompassed
`Page 26
`
`1 on interface device that identifies an inquire
`2 device has one or more input-output devices."
`3 Do you see that?
`4 A. Yes.
`5 Q. Do you recall if the petition made any
`6 reference to the term "inquire device"?
`7 MR. DUTTON: Objection. Foundation.
`8 THE WITNESS: The petition itself?
`9 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`10 Q. Yes.
`11 A. I don't recall. I could look it up if I
`12 had it in front of me.
`13 Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you: Prior to
`14 your reply declaration, did your original
`15 declaration use the term "inquire device"?
`16 A. I am not entirely sure. I may have. If
`17 I had it in front of me, I could look it over and
`18 see what I said there.
`19 Q. Okay. Well, let's open up Exhibit 1003,
`20 which is your original declaration. And it's
`21 pages 51 to 58, I think, are the relevant pages
`22 for you to maybe review. But if you would like to
`Page 27
`
`1 open it up now and take a few minutes, and let me
`2 know if you see the use of this term "inquire
`3 device," I would appreciate it.
`4 A. Sorry, which pages was it?
`5 Q. Well, I think the limitation that's
`6 really the only limitation we're discussing here
`7 today is -- ends on page 49 of your original
`8 declaration. You have the chart there.
`9 And, then, I think it's pages maybe 51 to
`10 57, sort of paragraphs 86 through 100.
`11 A. Okay. Yes. I see that section.
`12 Okay. So I'm just going to review this.
`13 Q. Yes. Take your time. Take a few minutes
`14 and read those paragraphs for me.
`15 A. Okay. So I reviewed the sections of
`16 both. Let's see, in my reply declaration, at the
`17 end of paragraph 17, I'm saying that a POSITA
`18 would understand, therefore, that the claims
`19 encompass an interface device that identifies an
`20 "inquire device" as one or more input-output
`21 devices.
`22 And these few paragraphs are responding
`Page 28
`
`1 to Mr. Gafford, in part, suggesting that the "it"
`2 in the claim refers only to the interface device.
`3 That's why I said "encompass," because I don't
`4 think it is limited to only the interface device
`5 but it could also be what I call the inquire
`6 device.
`7 Going back to my original declaration on
`8 paragraph 90, I'm explaining how Kawaguchi
`9 performs the inquiry step. And what it says is
`10 that the inquiry step represents reporting of
`11 attribute information of a target in a logical
`12 unit (identification code of a device type).
`13 Q. Okay. But did you see the use of the
`14 phrase "inquire device" in your original
`15 declaration?
`16 A. In the passages that I read in the
`17 original declaration, I don't see this particular
`18 phrase. But I think it is consistent with what I
`19 said in the original declaration, for example, in
`20 paragraph 90.
`21 Q. Was your construction of it is an
`22 input-output device, meaning the inquire device is
`Page 29
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`8 (Pages 26 - 29)
`
`

`

`Erez Zadok - November 28, 2017
`
`1 one or more input and/or output devices, was that
`2 included in your original declaration?
`3 MR. DUTTON: Objection. Form.
`4 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I understand
`5 the question exactly. It suggests that I've
`6 construed a term "inquire device."
`7 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`8 Q. Okay. Well, maybe let me clean it up for
`9 you.
`10 In your reply declaration, in paragraph
`11 17, you say, "A POSITA would understand,
`12 therefore, that the claims encompassed on the
`13 interface device that identified an inquire device
`14 as one or more input-output devices."
`15 Do you see that?
`16 A. Yeah.
`17 Q. Is there anywhere in your original
`18 declaration that -- in a section that you just
`19 reviewed -- where you note that an interface
`20 device -- excuse me, where you note that there
`21 could be one or more input-output devices, that
`22 the inquire device could be as one or more
`
`1 answered.
`2 THE WITNESS: So first, I don't have my
`3 other declarations. But I believe that, in some
`4 of the other ones, I provided or followed the
`5 construction specifically for this term.
`6 And secondly, what I'm doing here in this
`7 reply declaration is specifically responding to
`8 new issues raised by patent owner and Mr. Gafford.
`9 And that's what I said here in the reply
`10 declaration.
`11 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`12 Q. Okay. But that's not really an answer to
`13 my question.
`14 I need to know, did you make that
`15 statement that I've read repeatedly now, in
`16 paragraph 17 of your reply declaration? Did you
`17 make that statement in your original declaration?
`18 Irrespective of what Mr. Gafford did, did you make
`19 that statement or anything similar to it in your
`20 original declaration?
`21 MR. DUTTON: Objection. Form. Asked and
`22 answered.
`
`Page 30
`
`Page 32
`
`1 input-output devices?
`2 A. So in this particular declaration, in
`3 paragraph 64, I provide a construction for a
`4 different term, the data transmit-receive device.
`5 In the reply declaration, I clarify something that
`6 has been explained to me and I have understood
`7 from well before the reply declaration, certainly
`8 at the original declaration, and that is that
`9 terms like "a" should not be restricted to one
`10 only but can mean one or more.
`11 Q. Okay. But my question is, in your
`12 original declaration, with respect to the
`13 limitation that we're discussing, not the one that
`14 was, I guess, on paragraph 65, you said, of your
`15 original declaration -- with respect to this
`16 particular limitation, is there anywhere where you
`17 made a statement similar to the one you make in
`18 paragraph 17 of your reply declaration, that, "A
`19 POSITA would understand that the claims encompass
`20 an interface device that identifies an inquire
`21 device as one or more input-output devices"?
`22 MR. DUTTON: Objection. Form. Asked and
`Page 31
`
`1 THE WITNESS: I don't see a specific
`2 statement with the exact wording in the passages
`3 that I reviewed in my original declaration, but
`4 that has been my understanding and that has been
`5 my interpretation and what I followed.
`6 BY MR. DONAHUE:
`7 Q. All right. Now, let's move to -- if we
`8 could take out the Yamaguchi reference, which is
`9 Exhibit 1005. And I think if we open to figure 1,
`10 that would be useful for my next few questions.
`11 Just let me know when you have it.
`12 A. Yeah, I'm just going to clean up here.
`13 Okay. So I have that reference,
`14 Kawaguchi. And we're looking at figure 1 on page
`15 10?
`16 Q. Correct. So my question is, does the
`17 interrupt data reading unit, which is labeled 14
`18 in figure 1 of Yamaguchi, does that include a SCSI
`19 interface?
`20 A. Well, in this example they show a SCSI
`21 interface 7 that's part of the SCSI converter --
`22 SCSI device converter 3. They don't show in
`
`Page 33
`
`9 (Pages 30 - 33)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`

`

`Erez Zadok - November 28, 2017
`
`1 particular what additional hardware might be in
`2 these four units numbered 11 through 14.
`3 Q. Okay. So the SCSI interface that's
`4 labeled 7 in the drawing, it's not part of the
`5 interrupt data reading unit, right?
`6 A. The way I see it, the SCSI interface is
`7 what interfaces with these units. So I'm not sure
`8 if this means that it's inside the box labeled 14,
`9 but it is certainly working with it. All the
`10 components inside SCSI converter 3 have to work
`11 together.
`12 Q. Okay. But the SCSI interface 7 that's
`13 shown, that's part of the SCSI device converter 3,
`14 right?
`15 A. So the SCSI interface 7 and all the other
`16 components are part of the SCSI device converter
`17 3. They're inside this box and, as I said, all
`18 have to work together.
`19 Q. Okay. But from the figure, we can see
`20 that the SCSI interface is part -- 7 is part of
`21 the SCSI device converter 3, but there's nothing
`22 that tells us that the SCSI interface 7 is part of
`
`Page 34
`
`1 the interrupt data reading unit 14, is there?
`2 MR. DUTTON: Objection. Form.
`3 THE WITNESS: So the way this figure and
`4 the description as a whole go, it's that, you
`5 know, all these components are part of the SCSI
`6 interface converter. But they have to work
`7